As Parliament continues to debate the Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026, Uganda’s public universities have raised concerns over its possible implications on academic freedom, research collaboration, and the future of higher education.
Submissions from the Makerere University Academic Staff Association (MUASA) and Mbarara University of Science and Technology (MUST) reveal growing unease within the academic sector, though with markedly different tones on how the matter should be handled.
At the centre of the debate is whether the Bill, intended to protect Uganda’s sovereignty, may unintentionally restrict legitimate academic work that depends heavily on international partnerships and funding.
The Makerere University Academic Staff Association (MUASA) has taken a firm position against the Bill, warning that it could fundamentally alter how universities operate.
In its memorandum to Parliament, MUASA argues that the Bill could criminalise key academic activities, including studying abroad, publishing research, participating in international collaborations, and engaging in academic discourse.
According to the association, such restrictions would not only undermine academic freedom but also make the work of university staff “impossible” in practice.
MUASA further cautions that Uganda’s public universities are already struggling with limited government and private sector funding for research, meaning international partnerships have become essential for academic survival and innovation.
The association also notes that existing legal frameworks, including the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act and oversight bodies such as the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology, already regulate much of what the Bill seeks to address.
It therefore recommends that Parliament abandons the Bill entirely, or at a minimum exempts universities and students from its application.
Unlike MUASA, Mbarara University of Science and Technology (MUST) has taken a more cautious approach.
While expressing full support for the government’s intention to protect national sovereignty, MUST warns that the Bill may unintentionally interfere with legitimate university functions if not carefully refined.
The university highlights that public universities routinely engage in foreign-funded research, academic partnerships, innovation projects, scholarships, and international staff and student exchanges as part of their core mandate.
MUST raises particular concern over the Bill’s broad definition of an “agent of a foreigner,” arguing that it could potentially capture university staff, researchers, and students involved in externally funded but legally approved academic work.
According to the university, such ambiguity could introduce unnecessary administrative burdens, slow down research processes, and affect access to critical funding and partnerships that support Uganda’s development priorities.
However, unlike MUASA, MUST does not call for the rejection of the Bill. Instead, it proposes legal clarification, harmonisation with existing laws, and the introduction of safeguards for public universities.
It further suggests a saving clause to ensure that universities engaged in approved academic and research activities are not unfairly classified as foreign agents simply because they receive external funding.
Despite their differences in tone and approach, both MUASA and MUST converge on one key concern: the risk that the Bill, if not carefully refined, could unintentionally restrict legitimate academic work.
Both submissions highlight the growing reality that Uganda’s universities operate within global systems of knowledge production, where international collaboration, external funding, and cross-border research partnerships are not optional but essential.
In this context, any regulatory framework that broadly categorises foreign-supported academic activity as suspicious or restricted may have unintended consequences for research output, innovation, and academic competitiveness.
The debate around the Sovereignty Bill now presents a broader policy dilemma: how can Uganda protect national sovereignty while preserving the openness required for academic excellence?
On one hand, the government seeks to guard against undue foreign influence in national affairs. On the other hand, universities warn that overly broad restrictions could weaken the very institutions responsible for generating knowledge, skills, and innovation.
For students, researchers, and academic staff, the outcome of this debate could shape the future of study abroad opportunities, research funding, and international academic engagement in Uganda.
